[S Lilley]

Hi Guys

Union hat on (NASUWT) - TLR2 which is the lowest grading is higher than +1 so you get a little pay rise. Its designed to stop payments for nothing e.g. Cover managing (whihc you shouldnt be doing by the way) Trip Secretary etc these tasks are for Admin staff and not teachers. So they say. Pastoral people shouldnt worry - the cash is guaranteed for three years and the role should have a full job description and called somethiing like student support leader or some other daft title. I was Head of Humanities now am Director of Teaching and Learning Staff Support (Tudoe College) and have received a little increase in cash and a little less in workload - no admin tasks!!!!

[Ed Waller]

S Lilley, on Sep 27 2005, 10:08 PM, said:

Hi Guys

Union hat on (NASUWT) - TLR2 which is the lowest grading is higher than +1 so you get a little pay rise. Its designed to stop payments for nothing e.g. Cover managing (whihc you shouldnt be doing by the way) Trip Secretary etc these tasks are for Admin staff and not teachers. So they say. Pastoral people shouldnt worry - the cash is guaranteed for three years and the role should have a full job description and called somethiing like student support leader or some other daft title. I was Head of Humanities now am Director of Teaching and Learning Staff Support (Tudoe College) and have received a little increase in cash and a little less in workload - no admin tasks!!!!

The danger with the lowest TLR being above +1 is that people will lose the +1 and not get a TLR. Pastoral roles are already included in TLRs (see my post above). The cash guaranteed is not the same as keeping your income at the same level in real terms. MAs are frozen, and won't increase with the cost of living rises, so anyone not on more money thanks to TLRs will see their real income decrease for three more years. And at the end of thre years???

By all means give admin tasks to admin people, but how many teachers honestly don't do displays, chase letters from parents re absences, and all because it's easier to do it yourself than it is to explain to somebody else what you would like them to do.

If all of us pushed for 5 levels or TLRs that were each slightly higher than the MA levels plus the inflation increases we've lost, all teachers can move forward in Jan quite happy, mapped to and 'assimilated' in the new TLR rates. The alternative is incresing levels of demoralisation/disaffection and no school can want that... can they?

(And yes, this is with a union hat on - NUT, but not meant to start internicene war! I work very closely with my NAS colleague, and welcome working with any to the benefit of teachers and therefore students)

[MickCutler]

Ed Waller, on Sep 27 2005, 11:24 PM, said:

The danger with the lowest TLR being above +1 is that people will lose the +1 and not get a TLR. Pastoral roles are already included in TLRs (see my post above). The cash guaranteed is not the same as keeping your income at the same level in real terms. MAs are frozen, and won't increase with the cost of living rises, so anyone not on more money thanks to TLRs will see their real income decrease for three more years. And at the end of thre years???

It's worse than that for people who are to lose their +1. Not only are MAs frozen, you do lose the amount supposedly guaranteed as the guaranteed amount decreases proportionally with each pay rise. Every pay rise you get up to the level of the point is taken off the guaranteed sum - i.e. no pay rise. If you are on +1 your salary will stay more or less the same for the next three years (assuming a rise of about £800 per year) Plus you can be asked to undertake additional duties for your 'point' when for the next two years you will not get a pay rise. Anyone going through the threshold next year who is on +1 will lose that guaranteed sum as the pay rise to U1 is more than the current MA +1

Any HoD jobs coming up in N Yorks next year?

This post has been edited by MickCutler: 28 September 2005 - 10:26 PM

[Ed Waller]

Mick,

This is really awful. Are you in a union? Have you considering going along the grievance route at over the loss of your point? You should...

Ed

[S Lilley]

Call the union bods - this cant be done legally! There is a no detriment clause.

[Ed Waller]

S Lilley, on Sep 28 2005, 06:34 PM, said:

Call the union bods - this cant be done legally! There is a no detriment clause.

Hi Steve, Mick

Officially, as I understand it, Mick's case involves 'no detriment' in that his cash earnings are safeguarded for three years (by which time 'cost of living' increases in the main scale rates - M or UPS - should take him above his present salary + MA1). Thus his pay slip will not show a decrease, ie no detriment. The issue is the real income level (adjusting for inflation).

If his salary is currently £30000 + £1600 MA = 31600 Over the next three years his actual pay will increase by £227 (if we assume 3% inflation pay rises). If he had the whole package maintained and increased by the rate of 3% inflation this would be £33500. So his REAL INCOME LOSS is around £1700 per annum at the end of the third year. The consequences for lost pension income are just as shocking.

But I would very much agree that the loss of the point, and therefore the loss in income (until promotion to a TLR above the MA 1 scale) and pension earnings IS a cause for calling in the union bods.

[johnwayne]

hi - can we keep this thread going for as long as we can because we will all be in the same position soon - wondering how other schools are formattiing their TLRs - please.
I have a query also - is it possible for a 'mean' head to think because teacher x will be going through threshold they could take that rise in pay into account and not give a TLR - even though teacher x has responsibility points?

[gav]

johnwayne, on Sep 28 2005, 07:38 PM, said:

I have a query also - is it possible for a 'mean' head to think because teacher x will be going through threshold they could take that rise in pay into account and not give a TLR - even though teacher x has responsibility points?

No it shouldnt be. It depends what the points are for. They have to be based around teaching and learning. (although it is actually much more complex than this) The head should come up with a formula (models are available from LEAs) and apply it to all current roles (if those roles are being preserved) - so for example if heads of geog and history are currently on 2 management points, and under the new formula geog HOD is on 2.2 TLR, then history HOD should (allother factors being equal) also be on TLR2.2 However, the very nature of this chaotic mess is that a head could probably find a way to 'downgrade' someone if they wanted to.

Given the total confusion over TLRs I am sure that every conceivable scenario will emerge at some point.

Ed is correct - there is no need to abolish Heads of Year - provision exists within the government guidelines for these roles. Some heads have and will 'forget 'about this and get rid of such posts, thus saving lots of cash. And this is what it comes down to. The government has found a really 'neat' way of saving millions of pounds by cutting the expenditure on middle management. The total expenditure on wages will be lower as a result of this. Teachers' morale will be lower, heads will be exhausted from managing the process (which is incredibly complex) and how is this supposed to contribute positively to the education of the pupils

I cannot believe how this got through the unions - NASUWT in particular. All credit (for a change) to the NUT. I'm going to kick up a fuss at our area NASUWT meeting next week - not sure if joining the NUT instead is the answer but the suggestion should piss a few people off.

This discussion will go on and on - we haven't heard the worst of it yet.

[johnwayne]

hi - and thanks for the info. I am sure we will all be watching anxiously. we should be having a whole school meeting shortly but thought the union reps were to be consulted first?

[JohnDClare]

Thanks to all for their help and wisdom above.
I find it surprising that more people have not contributed to this thread - it really is going to be the single most important thing in people's lives for the rest of term.

Two things:

1. Attributability
Just on a note of caution, perhaps contributors should be VERY careful about sharing information about themselves or about their school's situation - not least for a 'keep your powder dry' reason. There is no reason why all manner of questions and issues cannot be raised, but best to keep them impersonal.
The post which fulminates: 'My b****d of a Head has done such-and-such to me' may come back to bite you on the bottom.

It would be unwise to share too much information about the process within a particular school.

If you are worried about your personal position, all you need to do is to ask in the third person: 'What happens in a situation where...'
Another alternative - if you really DO need to share specifics - would be to pm someone above who seems to know what they are talking about.


2. No decision yet taken
Remember that:
a. this is only the draft structure and we are in a consultation period. If you are disgruntled, what you need to do at this stage is gather your thoughts together as to the submission you are going to make to the governors - and involve your union in that process.
b. your submission to the governors has to go via the Head, so best not to tell him exactly what you think of him yet.
c. the governors are NOT going to be imnpressed by the: 'this will hurt me a really lot' argument. They will be sympathetic, but they are going to tell you that at the end of the day, this is about jobs not people. What YOU have to do is to prove that what they are proposing for your post is either inequitable, or inconsistent, or against the long-term interests of the pupils' teaching and learning. That is where you need to know the facts, and where asking questions on this forum may help.

[Ed Waller]

JDC is quite right on this... Not that any head is a b*****d or anything like it, of course

In my area the NUT area person wrote to the governors 'helpfully' pointing out a way to map TLRs pretty much to MAs (copies available!), and suggesting that he was sure that they wouldn't want to create any disaffection within the teaching staff. I think in English depts they call this bathos.

Certainly we've been advised to take to governors any loss of status or income or pension.

And it's true that this is the consultation period... in which everyone (esp middle managers present and future) should have an opportunity to remind the head that other schools may adopt a very different and higher level of TLR to her/him, and that as a result all the people s/he considers the best might just nip elsewhere and cast GCSE results to oblivion. Her/his possible reaction:

However as at least one head said: consult isn't the same as negotiate...but that shouldn't stop us

[S Lilley]

The key point is that you (if you are on Management points) should be having a chat with your Head discussing the Job that you both feel is the way forward for you - it seems to me that the majority of Heads do not want to loose staff - so you discuss the job description that you both come up with. Dont for God's sake call him/her/them anything - talk to your union rep. Then discuss with your boss the things he/you want.

There should be no loss of earnings - i understand Ed's point about natural earnings but your management points dont increase with inflation and TLRs as fra as i know dont affect Threshold as that is for general good practice - TLRs are for improving the quality of T and L in the School and can be for Pastoral/Subject/faculty leaders

If youre on M+3 you would probably get TLR1 lower level but your Head can decide the scale of TLR (typically TLR1 is higher than TLR2 just so you get really confused!!)

I would suggest a chat with the NAS/NUT/ATL rep and a look at the bumf they send. All reps should have a toolkit to help you = ask them!!!


Steve

[Ed Waller]

Steve is spot on that it's all confusing! Even some of the stuff published by the unions requires a second read.

Whether the govt made it confusing on purpose is an interesting area for debate

[gav]

S Lilley, on Sep 29 2005, 09:59 PM, said:

There should be no loss of earnings - i understand Ed's point about natural earnings but your management points dont increase with inflation and TLRs as fra as i know dont affect Threshold as that is for general good practice - TLRs are for improving the quality of T and L in the School and can be for Pastoral/Subject/faculty leaders



Steve

There will be loss of earnings for many. Management points have been frozen for over a year (effectively to pay for progression to UPS3 which was going to cost a fair bit. If you have a wage decrease because of TLRs, you will be protected for up to 3 years on the old amount. However, if as a result of going through threshold and any inflationary increases you earn more than the differential then it wipes it out. e.g. If your wages are reduced by 2grand under TLRs and you are due to cross threshold next year - your 2 grand will only be protected for 1 year.

As I've said, very few heads will increase total spending on wages as a result of this, so the government have achieved something they are very good at - giving wit hone hand and taking with the other. God knows how much money has been spent on Whitehall paperpushers to implement this system.

I wonder if anyone can offer an argument in favour of this.

[neil mcdonald]

One of the simplist arguements for TLRs is that for a while some staff in schools have MAs for roles that have nothing to do with teaching anf learning.

However, as it is plain to see, the chief reason is to reduce costs in staffing.

Has anyone reached consultation stage on this yet?